Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 30 April 2008 | 453, 18-21 (2008) | doi:10.1038/453018a
News Feature
Stem cells: The 3-billion-dollar question
Can a state do what a country cannot, and transform the way stem-cell research is funded? Erika Check Hayden reports on the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine.
Evan Snyder could hardly believe what he was hearing. About four years ago, Snyder, a neuroscientist and paediatrician, was sitting in the Los Angeles living room of Hollywood mogul Jerry Zucker, the producer and director behind movies such as Airplane! and _The Naked Gun.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email redesign@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
This is an excellent overview of the agency, which we should note operates outside of the normal control of the governor and legislature. Neither can touch its budget or funding source. CIRM is enshrined in the state constitution as well as state law. Changes in the state law affecting CIRM, such as Kuehl's bill, also require a 70 percent vote of the legislature, an unprecedented requirement. We also would like to point out that the conflict of interest involving CIRM director John Reed was first reported by the California Stem Cell Report (californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com)as were the complaints that CIRM had exaggerated its role in the Jamieson research.
Robert Klein and Prop 71 are sterling examples of how public research should not be funded. Four years after California saddled itself with $6 billion in long-term debt, Christopher Reeve is still dead, Klein's son still has diabetes, and we're likely decades away from the sort of miracle treatments that Klein and Co. promised when they oversold Prop 71 to the voters. That Klein is the chairman of CIRM's Independent Citizens Oversight Committee makes a farce of the committee's name, as does the number of board members who have a financial stake in how CIRM distributes its funds.
Any money left for iPS research?????? It is interesting to observe that, only a few month after the iPS storm which caused a "seismic" change in stem cell research and promised a new era for therapeutic cloning, not only fewer research publication coming out of some "national" project but also less money is pouring into the making of biological "airplanes".-------- I have read carefully this new News Feature and found that the magic word "iPS" was not even mentioned in this "3-billion-dollar question". How could this happen? --------- Can some stem cell authority tell us what is really happening in the stem cell research field? Are the Nobel iPS cells dead or dying? -------- Shi V. Liu (http://im1.biz; http://blog.sina.com.cn/im1) SVL@logibio.com
This comment has been removed by the moderator
California's stem cell research has not been shifted by the "seismic" change caused by the iPS "discovery"-------- It is interesting to see how the Japanese iPS "airplanes" have landed in the US. While the eastern part of the state is catching on very quickly, the western part of the country are left far behind the "bandwagon". Why?///// Now the richest stem cell research state even does not bother of touching the hot iPS cells. Why? Is it because California is already rich in gold and thus does not need any more magic tricks of "tuning lead into gold"?///// I am confused, very confused. Can any expert shed some light onto this enigma? Thanks! Many Thanks, indeed!! //////// Shi V. Liu (http://im1.biz; http://blog.sina.com.cn/im1) SVL@logibio.com
In fact, the California stem cell agency is likely to fund IPS research. Currently under consideration is a $25 million round of grants aimed at developing new cell lines. You can read about it here: http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/2008/02/more-than-100-requests-for-cirm.html
A Misleading Interpretation of California's Funding for Stem Cell Research ----------- David Jensen: I now read the webpage in the URL as you gave. However, I still did not find a single mentioning of the word "iPS" in this document, either. Why is this once extremly "hot" word now no where to be found in this webpage?///// As to the $25 million currently under consideration for supporting new cell lines, I did not get your impression that it is ALL for iPS cell lines.///// What Dr. Trounson stated is "We are please to have received applications to support research across the spectrum of approaches used to derive pluripotent stem cell lines." It is said that there are fifty fresh applications have been received but only 16 are scheduled to be awarded. So there is no such absolute conclusion yet that iPS research is likely to be funded.//// As a matter of fact, the only reference to iPS research in Dr. Trounson's CIRM statement is "Advances in new technologies such as induced pluripotency, while promising, are in their infancy in terms of being able to derive therapies and cures for disease and injury". This statement is in sharp contrast to someone's firm statement on the "proof of principle" of the therapeutic effect of iPS cells.///// It is even more interesting to notice that, while Nature has declared the arriving of the iPS era for stem cell research, CIRM will still "fund the derivation of new cell lies from" "the well-established means of human embryonic stem cells", despite the likely political controversy surround the embryonic stem cells. Why?///// So my prediction for the future of iPS in the west coast of US is: there will be only very small amount of money (if there are any such support) be given for iPS research unless it can be shown that terminally differentiated cells can be indeed induced back into pluripotent stem cells and such induction did not introduce any liability into the iPS cells to make it truly safe for therapy. However, no iPS researcher so far have been able to convince the informed world that these two questions have been adequately answered.//// When every things are placed above the table (not under the table), the unproven and risky new iPS technology will be difficult to compete with a well-established means. The in public money raised for stem cell research is aimed at quickly yielding some truly valid and also very affordable therapeutic applications, not any unproven hype which actually will lead to serious liability to the state? //////// Shi V. Liu (http://im1.biz; http://blog.sina.com.cn/im1) SVL@logibio.com
This comment has been removed by the moderator
FYI: Bayblab has launched a rather funny contest to find the best caption for the photograph at top, of Arnold Schwarzenegger peering through a microscope: http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/forum.htm.
CORRECTED URL: Sorry, wrong URL there ... the Bayblab caption contest is at http://bayblab.blogspot.com/2008/05/photo-caption-contest.html.
Potential captions for the big picture of the gold rush for stem cells in California:-------------- 1. Are these cells really stem cells?////// 2. I cannot see any difference between these therapeutic cells and those cancer cells!////// 3. What is the difference between induced stem cells and isolated pre-existing stem cells?/////// 4. What parts of the cells are reprogrammed and how can we be sure the reprogram is correct?////// 5. Why is there still a large degree of heterogeneity among the reprogrammed cells?////// 6. As far as I can see, these embryonic-like cells are indistinguishable from the adult cells!////// 7. How many clones are there in this highly focused field?////// 8. Are these cells immortal?////// 9. Which cell holds more youthful juice?///// 10. Can I inject reprogramming factors into specific cells and watch the result of turning lead into gold by myself? //////// Shi V. Liu (http://im1.biz; http://blog.sina.com.cn/im1) SVL@logibio.com
FROM THE EDITORS: Please note that the comment above that is listed as being from Douglas Guillen is really from Don Gibbons, chief communications officer for CIRM. Don contacted us saying he wasn't able to post under his name directly due to technical glitches. For the record, we would argue that the total funding pool for CIRM grants remains the same, so even if grant decisions are made within three distinct pots of money, any award within a single pot would hence reduce the total amount available for grants overall.
This comment has been removed by the moderator
This comment has been removed by the moderator